RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #10 (Larry Bird)

[70sFan]

I won't advocate Kobe voting, because I don't have him this high, but saying that Dirk was better than Kobe in their primes is just a matter of preference - not opinion backed up with strong arguments. They were always very close and everytime one player had clear edge over the other, it seems that was caused by down season by the other player.

Dirk has his arguments over Kobe, but the other way around is also true. I agree that Garnett was probably better overall, but Dirk isn't some kind of different tier player than Kobe...

[Joao Saraiva]

I won't advocate Kobe voting, because I don't have him this high, but saying that Dirk was better than Kobe in their primes is just a matter of preference - not opinion backed up with strong arguments. They were always very close and everytime one player had clear edge over the other, it seems that was caused by down season by the other player.

Dirk has his arguments over Kobe, but the other way around is also true. I agree that Garnett was probably better overall, but Dirk isn't some kind of different tier player than Kobe...

That is true. I think Kobe's ability to create his own shot, low TOs, and superb volume scoring got under appreciated arround here. I also feel his playmaking ability got torched by a few myths surrounding him. Dude was a superb passer, and even tough he wasn't always a willing one, he definitely could set up his teammates.

I believe Kobe was a better player Dirk. Dirk had the ability to score, not as much in volume but a in better efficiency. His passing tough wasn't something you wanted to create with, and Dirk had several problems finding the right play while being doubled at times. However Dirk was usually a very good playoff performer as well.

The one I don't see against those two is Kevin Garnett. Yes he has versatility and you can use him in spots the other two can't. Yes he's the best defender of the group. But he's also the worse 1st option on offense by a clear enough margin. And it's not like Kobe's man to man D wasn't superb too. By position obviously Kobe won't have the same impact as KG.

Dirk is under appreciated on defense. Some people used to talk about him as a negative or something, but put a rim protector next to him and he'll definitely be a positive on defense also.

[Joao Saraiva]

Kobe vs KG

Accodales and others:
Kobe
5 rings
1 MVP
2 FMVP
18 all star games
11 times top 5 in MVP voting
11 times all-NBA 1st

Garnett
1 ring
1 MVP
15 all star games
5 times top 5 in MVP voting
4 times all NBA 1st

In accodales and rings Kobe is miles and miles ahead of Kevin Garnett.

I doubt I have to say; it's been said a thousand times around here........but I guess I'll say it anyway: many/most here are quite limited in the degree to which they'll rate and rank an individual based upon team accomplishments, or upon media-awarded [or at times: fan-awarded] accolades.

I didn't begin taking deep dives into player analysis until sometime around 2013, though I was always "into" the NBA and enjoyed idly ranking players (even just mentally) as early as somewhere around 2000.
I recall feeling at the time that Garnett had been----simply put----a better player every year of their overlapping careers thru at least Kobe's first nine seasons [thru '05], with the possible exception of '01. And in '04 in particular, I remember marveling at Garnett and feeling like he was the best player in the world by a clear margin.
Anyway, I was then sort of unsure about '06 and '07 [felt roughly a draw to me at the time], and then maybe leaning slightly toward Kobe for the first time in '08, and probably leaning mostly toward Kobe thru '13 [with a possible exception in '12], where after it swung back to KG for their respective twilights ['14-'16--->where THREE of Kobe's "All-Stars" occurred: the entire gap between them on that particular accolade].

Getting into the deep dives of player analysis has since not changed my mind on any of the years where I thought Garnett was best.....but it has changed my mind on a one or two of the years where I was leaning toward Kobe.

I've come to a point where----despite how iconic Kobe was/is [which I've acknowledged is a small consideration in my criteria]---I just can't rank him above a player who I basically thought was better than him for almost their entire careers.

I get what you're saying. I feel however Kobe proved a lot more than Kevin Garnett in the playoffs. And I weight that into my equation, much more than accodales. However I do put some weight in accodales too. It was just one of the points that make me put Kobe over Garnett, not the entire story.

How many epic series/runs do you feel one and the other had, and how would you rank em?

[sansterre]

Some basic stat accumulations for the players being considered. I am not bringing this up to be dispositive, but simply to try and bring some context to everything by comparing them loosely together. To be clear, I've hated Win Shares ever since Bill James used them to say that Yogi Berra was better than Johnny Bench, and Joe Morgan was better than any of Rogers Hornsby, Eddie Collins and Nap Lajoie. It really favors players who were good on winning teams, which is fine and all, but it really skews to favor players with strong teammates. But it's what we got pre-1973 so what are you gonna do?

Regular Season VORP / BPM:
Kevin Garnett: +96.9 / +5.6
Dirk Nowitzki: +84.8 / +4.5
Kobe Bryant: +80.1 / +4.6
Larry Bird: +77.2 / +6.9

Bird jumps off the page as having the best overall quality by BPM, but his career is so much shorter that he still finishes on the bottom. Garnett finishes #1 in VORP (by a lot) and has the second highest BPM. Dirk and Kobe are seen as comparably good, but Dirk played longer so comes out with the edge.

Regular Season Win Shares / WS/48:
Dirk Nowitzki: 206.3 / 0.193
Kevin Garnett: 191.4 / 0.182
Oscar Robertson: 189.2 / 0.207
Kobe Bryant: 172.7 / 0.170
Jerry West: 162.6 / 0.213
Larry Bird: 145.8 / 0.203
George Mikan: 108.7 / 0.249

Mikan was the most dominant, but played for such a short length of time that he's still ranked at the bottom. Bird is seen as dominant in his time, but playing so little that West is seen as a superior option. Kobe is seen as the worst of these in average performance. Dirk shows up as the best in career value, while Garnett shows #2; Oscar Robertson playing longer than West really helps him.

Playoff BPM (for prime-ish seasons):
Larry Bird (80-88): +7.4
Kevin Garnett (99-08): +7.0
Dirk Nowitzki (01-11): +6.6
Kobe Bryant (01-10): +6.1

Kobe shows up at the bottom, while Bird shows up at the top. I'm surprised to see Garnett above Dirk here.

Playoff WS/48 (for prime-ish seasons):
George Mikan (49-56): 0.254
Jerry West (61-70): 0.222
Dirk Nowitzki (01-11): 0.207
Oscar Robertson (62-73): 0.195
Larry Bird (80-88): 0.183
Kobe Bryant (01-10): 0.178
Kevin Garnett (99-08): 0.172

Garnett showing on the bottom here (while showing at +7.0 in BPM) I basically read to say "He played well on teams that lost a lot in the playoffs." Kobe shows barely better. And, surprisingly, Bird shows barely better than that. Dirk shows as the highest-rated modern player, with West performing in the playoffs better than Oscar Robertson.

Prime WOWYR
Oscar Robertson: +8.4
Jerry West: +7.4
Dirk Nowitzki: +7.1
Kobe Bryant: +6.5
Kevin Garnett: +6.2
Larry Bird: +4.1

I'm deeply confused about how WOWYR can see Bird as being so replaceable, but it is what it is. Garnett and Kobe show decently, Dirk shows better and O and West show at the top.

Reg. Season Boring Plus/Minus Value (career points added):
Kevin Garnett: +11329
Dirk Nowitzki: +9632
Kobe Bryant: +4661

Garnett, of course, dominates the Plus/Minus stat, with Dirk not too far behind. Kobe is hurt because I used career value and he was pretty awful late in his career.

Playoff Prime Boring Plus/Minus:
Kevin Garnett: +15.2
Kobe Bryant: +9.0
Dirk Nowitzki: +3.2

Yeah, Garnett's plus minus in the playoffs is insane. I have to say, I'm super-curious how Dirk's prime playoff years are so good on BPM/WS48 and so awful by Plus/Minus.


So where does all of this leave us? Probably with minds unchanged.

I will say, I'm very surprised to see Dirk showing up higher than Bryant in almost everything. And I'm a little scandalized to see Bird show so low on account of his short career. And it's also clear that the gap between Robertson/West and their peers was *really* high. And, obviously, these numbers don't count everything.

And at the end of the day, my voting is going to be unchanged:

1. Kevin Garnett
2. Larry Bird
3. Oscar Robertson

Garnett's career value is really good, he played very well in the playoffs and fancy stats that I haven't mentioned (because I don't know how to get them) think that he's the man. I'm less sold on Bird here, and you could argue that Bird should be lower. But when a players historical reputation lines up with Ben Taylor's analysis, I'm not going to fight it too hard. And Robertson . . . if I was going to stay modern I'd do Dirk or Kobe here, but I don't feel comfortable about not putting in one of West and Robertson, and I think O is the better choice here.

[Dutchball97]

Why do you assume that everyone thinks Bird was clearly better than KG? Peak KG has plenty of arguments over peak Bird.

I don't think he has, which is why I'm becoming kind of desperate to get it. I think KG's 04 and 08 are on the level of Bird's 85, 87 and 88 seasons but not as good as 84 or 86.

The main argument I personally see for KG's peak over Bird is his defense but why are Shaq and Magic ahead of KG then?

I still have KG top 15 so I would've been voting for him soon anyway but I can't see him over Bird. Up untill now everyone voted in was my first choice or at least my second choice. This is the first time someone is (at least by the looks of it atm) getting in I have a tier lower than an available guy.

Well, for once many posters argued KG over Magic and Shaq anyway, so it's not like they voted for Magic, but not for Bird. This list will never be consistent, because it's a combination of various opinions and various criteria. i agree that Magic and Bird shouldn't be very far, but view Magic clearly higher for example.

Firstly, why do you think that KG was better in 2004 or 2008 than in 2001-03 or 2005-07? He had better teams in these seasons, but I wouldn't call 2008 KG better player than 2003 KG for example. It's not like he played poorly in playoffs every time either - he played neck and neck with prime Duncan in 2001 playoffs for example. I don't see any large difference in Garnett's impact from 2000 to 2009 until injury.

Secondly, could you elaborate why do you have 04/08 KG on 85, 87/88 Bird level, but not on 84/86? Is this because of postseason run? If so, you have to answer why Bird couldn't reach this level consistently. If that's because of health, you have to count this against him. If not, then maybe we should look at the whole 1984-88 period and then Bird's production isn't on another level really.

Then you have to think of what makes peak Bird better than peak Garnett. Here the debate is tougher, because they are much different players and I can see the case for both. Which is the point - I don't see any reason to believe that Bird was so much better at his peak it isn't even worth to discuss about it. To me, the comparison is very close and both sides have very solid arguments.

Defense vs offense is always tricky, but as someone high on individual defense I'd take KG over Bird. It's not like KG wasn't offensive superstar and he also adds far better longevity which only widened the gap - not made it.

I'm clearly putting a premium on play-off performance when I'm saying Bird's 84 and 86 seasons are better than any KG seasons. Bird not reaching those highs every year means he's not in the conversation with the likes of MJ, LeBron and Kareem who all did manage to reach those highs consistently. My point is that I'd rather have someone who has two All-Time great post-season runs than someone who never has.

Play-offs are very important to me because regular season performance doesn't necessarily always translate to the post-season. Look at Giannis this year who was extremely dominant in the regular season but fizzled out in the play-offs. I have a hard time saying Giannis had a better year than guys like Butler and Jokic.

Bird not always being that good in the play-offs due to injuries is not a slight to him imo. When he still performs as well injured as the best play-off performances of guys like KG, Karl Malone and D-Rob I think that proves a point in favor of Bird if anything.

[The-Power]

I don't think he has, which is why I'm becoming kind of desperate to get it.

I'm not participating but this statement bugs me a bit. It's entirely fair to rank Garnett lower depending on what you value and how you view Garnett. But: if there is one thing I can definitely say for the Garnett-crowd, it's that they substantiate their views extensively and provide many arguments for why they are high on Garnett.

You might not agree with all or even most of them, that's fine. But to not even acknowledge that a case for Garnett can be made, and that there are plenty of reasoned arguments available (not only in this thread, but over the years), is quite dismissive of posters who have gone to great lengths to explain their viewpoint and provide in-depth analysis.

Your subsequent comments about other players – with far worse careers than Garnett – that would have to be considered (soon) if Garnett is being voted in just shows me that you're not even willing to listen to the (strong) case that is made for KG. If that case is so weak, then why don't you write a rebuttal in response to, for instance, some of drza's many detailed posts on Garnett's case?

Up untill now everyone voted in was my first choice or at least my second choice. This is the first time someone is (at least by the looks of it atm) getting in I have a tier lower than an available guy.

Well, that's bound to happen in projects like this one.

[Dutchball97]

I don't think he has, which is why I'm becoming kind of desperate to get it.

I'm not participating but this statement bugs me a bit. It's entirely fair to rank Garnett lower depending on what you value and how you view Garnett. But: if there is one thing I can definitely say for the Garnett-crowd, it's that they substantiate their views extensively and provide many arguments for why they are high on Garnett.

You might not agree with all or even most of them, that's fine. But to not even acknowledge that a case for Garnett can be made, and that there are plenty of reasoned arguments available (not only in this thread, but over the years), is quite dismissive of posters who have gone to great lengths to explain their viewpoint and provide in-depth analysis.

Your subsequent comments about other players – with far worse careers than Garnett – that would have to be considered (soon) if Garnett is being voted in just shows me that you're not even willing to listen to the (strong) case that is made for KG. If that case is so weak, then why don't you write a rebuttal in response to, for instance, some of drza's many detailed posts on Garnett's case?

Up untill now everyone voted in was my first choice or at least my second choice. This is the first time someone is (at least by the looks of it atm) getting in I have a tier lower than an available guy.

Well, that's bound to happen in projects like this one.

Judging by your tone I have a feeling the message I was trying to convey didn't quite come out.

I'm not disregarding all the high quality analysis that has been written in favor of KG. This is more of a criteria thing. The longevity vs peak/prime argument is always going to be prominent and it's a very understandable one. If you think every season counts in the valuation of a player I completely understand picking KG over Bird even if I personally disagree with it. However, if this is the main reason you pick KG over Bird I do wonder about someone like Karl Malone.

What seperates KG and Karl Malone here is that KG at his best was simply better than Malone at his best but where my point comes in is that while KG was a better player, I'm not sure if you can say he had a better NBA career. Since we're not considering international or college careers this isn't a general "best basketball player" top 100, this is a "best NBA/ABA/NBL/BAA basketball player" top 100. To me that sounds like we're looking at who had the best career in the NBA and for that I do think deep play-off runs are an essential part of the equation.

KG being praised for what he could've done with better teams seems like too much of a what if. In Boston he took on a lesser role to fit in with two other stars and it worked but we can't say for sure KG playing like he did in Minny but with better teammates would mean he'd have a better play-off resume than Bird. Of course KG isn't only a what if, he did a lot in his career and like I said I don't have him that much lower than this. Though I think it's a double standard KG doesn't get blamed for sticking with a bad team, while the likes of Bird and Walton are blamed for injuries.

[limbo]

You need to be really high on Kobe's playmaking ability and defense and really low on Dirk's playmaking (spacing + drawing def. attention in the post) defense to consider Kobe above Dirk. Also you would need to ignore the fact that Dirk played on weaker casts from 2000-2011 on aggregate.

Even in the 2005-2007 period, Dirk had the better cast, but not nearly on the level of what Kobe had from 2000-2004 and 2008-2011...

Dampier/Howard/Stackhouse/Terry/Harris is NOT a cast that should be winning 67 games and competing with the Spurs/Suns of the mid 00's... Dampier can't hold a candlestick to Shaq or Gasol/Bynum at C. Josh Howard wasn't better than Ariza or MWP. He's more similar to a Rick Fox. Terry was a solid player, but not a championship level 2nd option. He routinely underperformed in the Playoffs as i mentioned in the previous post, he was not a strong isolation player on his own, he needed Dirk's pressure to get him open on offense. Stack was a chucker who did more bad than good, but because of his reputation and Dallas lack of options, he was one of the main rotation guys. And young Harris was a decent scrappy player but not better than old Fisher, let alone the early 00's version.

All of the available Plus/Minus data has Dirk's prime clearly above Kobe's. In fact, in his peak years, Dirk was closer or even above KG and Duncan in impact metrics...he's definitely closer to those two than he is to Kobe. You can also look at Dirk's advanced stats or the fact that he was leading better offenses than Kobe ever did even if we ignore the early 00's Mavs due to the talent levels. Kobe had more talented offensive casts than Dirk in the late 00's but Dirk was able to do more, either with Dampier/Diop, Howard, Terry, Stack, Harris or Chandler, Marion, Terry, Kidd.

I think both these guys upper prime years are 2006-2011, and i think Dirk clearly peaked higher in the RS and was an overall more consistent performer throughout those years. The problem with Dirk is a lot of his strongest Playoff runs were cut short because his team was garbage in the late 00's, while he Lakers were able to be competitive or even win outright with Kobe struggling individually at times, like in 2008 and 2010.

Kobe has 2000 (evem though he got carried in the Playoffs in a way Dirk never had the luxury of being) because it was before Dirk hit his prime. 2001 is close, but you can give it to Kobe for his Playoff streak. 2002 is Dirk. 2003 wash. 2004 Kobe better RS but worse PS. 2005 is Dirk easily.

Post prime you have Dirk every single year fwiw, outside of 2013...

[limbo]

Playoff Prime Boring Plus/Minus:
Kevin Garnett: +15.2
Kobe Bryant: +9.0
Dirk Nowitzki: +3.2

Dirk's Playoff plus/minus doesn't correspond with his advanced stats because the first measures impact on scoring margin while the second measure box score production.

Dirk had a lot of series in his career where he had all-time great offensive production but his team was getting blown out defensively with him on the court playing a rim-protection role with a historically weak defensive backcourt. This means overall +/- won't be as impressive

Same way if the Nets play Kevin Durant at C with weak defenders around him the defense will be garbage, especially against elite offensive teams, which Dirk frequently faced in the 1st or 2nd round in the PS.

So it basically comes down to a combination of Dallas having a terrible defensive cast around Dirk and doubling down by playing Dirk at C or putting 6'8" Brandon Bass at C in the late 00s because Dampier declined severely coupled with strong Playoff opponents that exploit that with GOAT offensive players like Nash/CP3 and insanely hot shooting by the Warriors and Nuggets... As well as D-Wade riding the form of his life and the referee whistle somewhere there in the mix. Also Dirk's offensive help frequently underperformed in the Playoffs, not that he had much in that area outside of Jason jump shooting Terry. Before that Finley was horrible in multiple series, but shooting like he's MJ. NVE the same. Maybe one good offensive series in 2 years...

[70sFan]

You need to be really high on Kobe's playmaking ability and defense and really low on Dirk's playmaking (spacing + drawing def. attention in the post) defense to consider Kobe above Dirk. Also you would need to ignore the fact that Dirk played on weaker casts from 2000-2011 on aggregate.

I'm quite low on Dirk's passing (which reduces his playmaking ability even factoring spacing and gravity) and relative to this top 15 competition I'm also low on his defense (which doesn't mean he sucked on that end, but he was not even Karl Malone for example). I don't think it's unreasonable to criticize Dirk for that when we compare him to other top 15 players ever.

It doesn't mean that you can't have Dirk over Kobe (I have them on the same tier), but you're talking like taking Kobe over Dirk is something out of this universe.

[zonedefense]

I always have a hard time with alltime lists like this when players that are basically on the same level are separated by multiple positions. Magic being 7th while Bird misses the top 10 just feels wrong. Same for any ranking that has KG multiple spots ahead of Kobe or Dirk.

[DQuinn1575]

Prime WOWYR
Oscar Robertson: +8.4
Jerry West: +7.4
Dirk Nowitzki: +7.1
Kobe Bryant: +6.5
Kevin Garnett: +6.2
Larry Bird: +4.1

I'm deeply confused about how WOWYR can see Bird as being so replaceable, but it is what it is. Garnett and Kobe show decently, Dirk shows better and O and West show at the top.

So, then the WOWYR doesn't look at how the team improves the player joins the team? Because if it did, Bird would be way higher.
I haven't studied the WOWYR, so don't want to make any more assumptions about it, but I would think the change in team performance when they joined the team would have some impact on it, and in that part of the equation, Bird would score much higher than the others.

[penbeast0]

...

Regular Season Win Shares / WS/48:
Dirk Nowitzki: 206.3 / 0.193
Kevin Garnett: 191.4 / 0.182
Oscar Robertson: 189.2 / 0.207
Kobe Bryant: 172.7 / 0.170
Jerry West: 162.6 / 0.213
Larry Bird: 145.8 / 0.203
George Mikan: 108.7 / 0.249

Mikan was the most dominant, but played for such a short length of time that he's still ranked at the bottom. Bird is seen as dominant in his time, but playing so little that West is seen as a superior option. Kobe is seen as the worst of these in average performance. Dirk shows up as the best in career value, while Garnett shows #2; Oscar Robertson playing longer than West really helps him....

Do you know what year WS is calculated from? Mikan came out of school in 46 and the Lakers played in more than one league. Also, the seasons didn't have 82 games yet and many of the stats weren't recorded. Always a problem looking at Mikan.

[limbo]

I'm quite low on Dirk's passing (which reduces his playmaking ability even factoring spacing and gravity) and relative to this top 15 competition I'm also low on his defense (which doesn't mean he sucked on that end, but he was not even Karl Malone for example). I don't think it's unreasonable to criticize Dirk for that when we compare him to other top 15 players ever.

Does it, though? We saw Dirk play on three distinctly different cores offensively and his passing ability didn't get in the way of producing elite offenses in any of those situations. Not only that, but with Dirk's off ball ability paired next to an elite playmaker and competent offensive players (at least during the RS) Dirk was able to be the best offensive player on historically good offensive teams in the early 00's...

I'm not to say Dirk's passing isn't something we should look at, obviously he'd been even more dominant if he had a better passing ability, but i see Dirk as kind of a 96-98 MJ player offensively. Jordan wasn't some dominant passer in those years, matter of fact, the Bulls leveraged most of the passing duty on their team away from Jordan and just used him to wreck havoc off-ball, in the post and in the mid-range... Dirk did the same, except his off-ball game extended all the way to 3pt line and brought opposition rim protection with him. Same when he was isolating, he's raking guys like Duncan, Gasol, Ibaka, Bosh outside with him, because if you put a smaller dude on Dirk he's posting him up and raining jumpers over him all game. Dirk is a nightmare matchup to defend.

You know Dirk's passing is not a major weakness when he's leading the best offense in the league without an elite playmaker on his team... Dirk didn't have Pippen or Kukoc during those 2005-2007 seasons to pick up the shot creating duties on his team. Jason Terry was the best he got. And i'd take Harper/Kerr over Stackhouse/Harris as well...

If this + all the metrics pointing towards Dirk's impact offensively isn't enough to convince you he's a strong playmaker regardless of his passing than you'll simply never be convinced. You're mind is already closed off.

RE: Karl Malone better than Dirk defensively.

Ok, but we're talking about Kobe now, not Karl. Kobe was not some game-changing defender where it would push him over the edge in a comparison with Dirk. Matter of fact, Dirk ranks ahead of Kobe in defensive RAPM from 2006 to 2012 as well... So what are we talking about here again? Kobe was only a strong perimeter defender in the early 00s playing in front of Shaq/Horry/Fox/George, with Fisher who was one of the best defensive PGs in the early 00s based on on/off.. and even then Kobe was overrated imo in 2002-2005. After that he just focused on scoring a lot more and only got up defensively for marquee matchups and still didn't have that much impact in those.

There's nothing out there that would make me take Kobe over Dirk defensively. Kobe played on way better defensive teams from 2000 to 2010 which is why his teams didn't get blasted on that end as much as Dirk's teams using Dirk or Bass at C with weak defenders outside of him. Dirk is not a C. He should be looked at the same way Durant and Bird are looked at. He just happens to be 7 ft instead of 6'10 or something. Would you put Bird at C with Finley, NVE, Nash against the 80's Lakers and then conclude Bird is a garbage defender because they'd get rolled over? Probably not. But since Bird had competent players on both sides of the ball and Parish down low, he didn't have to do that...

It doesn't mean that you can't have Dirk over Kobe (I have them on the same tier), but you're talking like taking Kobe over Dirk is something out of this universe.

I mean, when both hit their primes at the same time and it was clear to most knowledgeable people that Dirk was the better player in most of those years, peaked higher and was more consistent (as well as the metrics confirming this across the board), then yes... it does look like something out of the universe and reeks heavily off winning bias, specifically titles, and marketing, which is where Kobe obviously holds huge advantages over Dirk.

[No-more-rings]

Kobe over KG/Dirk is kind of mindblowing since all three played in the same era, their primes mostly overlap, and Kobe was rarely better than Garnett or Dirk in most of those prime seasons...

Kobe maybe had, what... 3 seasons where you could argue he outperformed KG and was thus a better player for the season. And those are 2001, solely on the back of a stronger Playoff run with a much better cast, as teams were throwing bodies at Shaq. 2007, and not by a lot despite KG playing on a historically bad team. And 2009 where Garnett got sidelined by an injury, otherwise they were close throughout the RS. People will push for 2006 because Kobe averaged 35 and squeaked into the Playoffs on a better team only to have a poor showing against the Suns, but KG was better overall, imo. At worst i can give this year a wash, as it really doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme.

97, 98, 99, 00, 02, 03, 04, 05, 08, 10, 11, 12, 13

KG better in all of those. Even if i concede 2010 (where Kobe was not that impressive in the PS despite winning the title, and KG being more integral to Boston success, and probably wins another title if Perk doesn't get injured and LA massive frontcourt just dominates Boston who has no size/physicality now) and 2013, it still KG overall easily...

Dirk was better than Kobe in 02, 05, 06, 07, 11, 12

Feel like 01, 03, 08, 10 are a wash.

Kobe was better in 00, 04, 09

Kobe's 98 and 99 are basically Dirk's 13 and 15 seasons. Kobe's 13 = Dirk's 14.

If winning bias/marketing is too strong it seems.

Or you know, not everyone just agrees with the assertion that Kobe was rarely better than Dirk as you put it. I think most people would consider them pretty close, not a wipeout in favor of Dirk.

Btw i don't get why people tend to dismiss winning so much as if it's something the player had nothing to do with.

I think 01 is clear cut in Kobe's favor, unless you want to just ignore his playoff run say it doesn't matter because he had Shaq. I'd feel comfortable putting Kobe ahead in 03 as well, especially when we consider injuries.

I think 06 is more or less a wash, but i could see picking Dirk.

Kobe takes 08-10 if we're being fair. Otherwise we're just ranking Dirk on the hypothetical that he could've replicated Kobe's performances for 3 straight finals. He maybe could've but lets not turn this project into the top 100 what ifs of all time.

[70sFan]

Does it, though? We saw Dirk play on three distinctly different cores offensively and his passing ability didn't get in the way of producing elite offenses in any of those situations. Not only that, but with Dirk's off ball ability paired next to an elite playmaker and competent offensive players (at least during the RS) Dirk was able to be the best offensive player on historically good offensive teams in the early 00's...

I'm not to say Dirk's passing isn't something we should look at, obviously he'd been even more dominant if he had a better passing ability, but i see Dirk as kind of a 96-98 MJ player offensively. Jordan wasn't some dominant passer in those years, matter of fact, the Bulls leveraged most of the passing duty on their team away from Jordan and just used him to wreck havoc off-ball, in the post and in the mid-range... Dirk did the same, except his off-ball game extended all the way to 3pt line and brought opposition rim protection with him. Same when he was isolating, he's raking guys like Duncan, Gasol, Ibaka, Bosh outside with him, because if you put a smaller dude on Dirk he's posting him up and raining jumpers over him all game. Dirk is a nightmare matchup to defend.

Why don't you use the same criteria for other limited players though? I mean, you're the biggest critic of Shaq's offensive game because he couldn't shoot but why did it matter if his teams dominated the league across decade?

Dirk is one of the best offensive players ever, but we're comparing him to other candidates for offensive GOATs. If you want to criticize Shaq for shooting, Moses for turnovers, Kobe for scoring efficiency then I see no reason to make it different with Dirk's passing which clearly reduced his ceilling as an offensive anchor to some degree.

You know Dirk's passing is not a major weakness when he's leading the best offense in the league without an elite playmaker on his team... Dirk didn't have Pippen or Kukoc during those 2005-2007 seasons to pick up the shot creating duties on his team. Jason Terry was the best he got. And i'd take Harper/Kerr over Stackhouse/Harris as well...

Dirk never played without decent perimeter creators. He didn't play with elite rosters all the time, but he had excellent coaches and deep teams more often than not.

If this + all the metrics pointing towards Dirk's impact offensively isn't enough to convince you he's a strong playmaker regardless of his passing than you'll simply never be convinced. You're mind is already closed off.

When did I say that he wasn't strong playmaker? The question is if he's better playmaker than someone like Kobe (or Bird, or West, or Oscar) and that's entirely different question.

RE: Karl Malone better than Dirk defensively.

Ok, but we're talking about Kobe now, not Karl. Kobe was not some game-changing defender where it would push him over the edge in a comparison with Dirk. Matter of fact, Dirk ranks ahead of Kobe in defensive RAPM from 2006 to 2012 as well... So what are we talking about here again? Kobe was only a strong perimeter defender in the early 00s playing in front of Shaq/Horry/Fox/George, with Fisher who was one of the best defensive PGs in the early 00s based on on/off.. and even then Kobe was overrated imo in 2002-2005. After that he just focused on scoring a lot more and only got up defensively for marquee matchups and still didn't have that much impact in those.

There's nothing out there that would make me take Kobe over Dirk defensively. Kobe played on way better defensive teams from 2000 to 2010 which is why his teams didn't get blasted on that end as much as Dirk's teams using Dirk or Bass at C with weak defenders outside of him. Dirk is not a C. He should be looked at the same way Durant and Bird are looked at. He just happens to be 7 ft instead of 6'10 or something. Would you put Bird at C with Finley, NVE, Nash against the 80's Lakers and then conclude Bird is a garbage defender because they'd get rolled over? Probably not. But since Bird had competent players on both sides of the ball and Parish down low, he didn't have to do that...

Again, you're saying that Dirk wasn't worse because he played with worse teammates. I don't think that's enough to conclude who's better defensive player.

Dirk played at center because Nelson tried to maximize Dallas offense in exchange of defense, so if you want to praise him for high efficient offenses from the early 2000s - I see no reason to criticize him for defense as well.

Also - Dirk didn't play like Durant on defense because he was poor perimeter player. He couldn't guard small players - it's as simple as that.

I mean, when both hit their primes at the same time and it was clear to most knowledgeable people that Dirk was the better player in most of those years, peaked higher and was more consistent (as well as the metrics confirming this across the board), then yes... it does look like something out of the universe and reeks heavily off winning bias, specifically titles, and marketing, which is where Kobe obviously holds huge advantages over Dirk.

"To most knowledgeable people" - so you assume that anyone who has Kobe over Dirk wasn't knowledgeable? That's silly argument...

Here are POY results from 2000-12 period:

Spoiler:

2000
Kobe 8th
Dirk not ranked

2001
Kobe 3rd
Dirk not ranked

2002
Kobe 3rd
Dirk 7th

2003
Kobe 4th
Dirk 6th

2004
Kobe 4th
Dirk 7th

2005
Kobe not ranked
Dirk 6th

2006
Kobe 3rd
Dirk 2nd

2007
Kobe 2nd
Dirk 3rd

2008
Kobe 2nd
Dirk 6th

2009
Kobe 2nd
Dirk 6th

2010
Kobe 2nd
Dirk 7th

2011
Kobe not ranked
Dirk 1st

2012
Kobe 6th
Dirk 5th

I actually think that Dirk's a bit underrated by these results, but there is no reason to believe that Dirk was much better than Kobe in both primes. A lot of knowledgeable posters actually have Kobe above Dirk overall (including ElGee).

[sansterre]

...

Regular Season Win Shares / WS/48:
Dirk Nowitzki: 206.3 / 0.193
Kevin Garnett: 191.4 / 0.182
Oscar Robertson: 189.2 / 0.207
Kobe Bryant: 172.7 / 0.170
Jerry West: 162.6 / 0.213
Larry Bird: 145.8 / 0.203
George Mikan: 108.7 / 0.249

Mikan was the most dominant, but played for such a short length of time that he's still ranked at the bottom. Bird is seen as dominant in his time, but playing so little that West is seen as a superior option. Kobe is seen as the worst of these in average performance. Dirk shows up as the best in career value, while Garnett shows #2; Oscar Robertson playing longer than West really helps him....

Do you know what year WS is calculated from? Mikan came out of school in 46 and the Lakers played in more than one league. Also, the seasons didn't have 82 games yet and many of the stats weren't recorded. Always a problem looking at Mikan.

BAA in 49 and NBA from 50 to 56. I make no representations that it's much of anything; it's just what basketball-reference had.

[Dutchball97]

Winning bias would be putting Isiah Thomas ahead of Dirk because Isiah won 2 rings to Dirk's 1.

Taking Kobe over Dirk because he had more success in the play-offs than Dirk over their careers, however isn't winning bias.

Performance matters but so do results.

[eminence]

...

Regular Season Win Shares / WS/48:
Dirk Nowitzki: 206.3 / 0.193
Kevin Garnett: 191.4 / 0.182
Oscar Robertson: 189.2 / 0.207
Kobe Bryant: 172.7 / 0.170
Jerry West: 162.6 / 0.213
Larry Bird: 145.8 / 0.203
George Mikan: 108.7 / 0.249

Mikan was the most dominant, but played for such a short length of time that he's still ranked at the bottom. Bird is seen as dominant in his time, but playing so little that West is seen as a superior option. Kobe is seen as the worst of these in average performance. Dirk shows up as the best in career value, while Garnett shows #2; Oscar Robertson playing longer than West really helps him....

Do you know what year WS is calculated from? Mikan came out of school in 46 and the Lakers played in more than one league. Also, the seasons didn't have 82 games yet and many of the stats weren't recorded. Always a problem looking at Mikan.

BAA in 49 and NBA from 50 to 56. I make no representations that it's much of anything; it's just what basketball-reference had.

Don't have advanced stats, but you can get a rough look at his 47 and 48 NBL seasons on BBref as well: https://www.basketball-reference.com/nbl/seasons/

Another pair of sites I like for the early days:

https://probasketballencyclopedia.com/

https://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBL/index.html

[Jordan Syndrome]

Winning bias would be putting Isiah Thomas ahead of Dirk because Isiah won 2 rings to Dirk's 1.

Taking Kobe over Dirk because he had more success in the play-offs than Dirk over their careers, however isn't winning bias.

Performance matters but so do results.

Kobe didn't perform better in the post-season than Dirk though. His team did have more success though, so...Winning Bias.